RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA,ETAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(1),, ETAH

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowed the expenditure on adhoc basis. 10. On the other hand, learned DR relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 11. Considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record. 12. We observe that with regard to the cash deposits

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, MORENA vs. SHRI AGRASEN LOGISTICS, JOTAI ROAD, PORSA,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

deposit is paid through banking channels to the\nbeneficiaries. However in this case, the AO failed to bring on record that how cash of the\nappellant firm had changed hands before it got routed through multiple layers in the form\nof unsecured loans. Thus without conducting any independent enquiry the AO made\naddition only on the basis of suspicions

RAVINDER SINGH 402 SAI DEEP APARTMENT 29 RAM BAGH COLONY SHINDE KI CHAWNI LASHKAR GWALIOR,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2) GWALIOR AAYKAR BHAWAN CITY CENTRE GWALIOR , GWALIOR

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

cash deposits made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on the following grounds : “1. That the assessment order as well as the order of Ld. CIT (A) are both against the facts of the case and are untenable under the law. The Id. CIT (A) has grossly erred in sustaining the disallowance

RAVINDER SINGH 402SAI DEEP APARTMENT 26-RAM BAGH COLONY SHINDE KI CHAWNI LASHKAR GWALIOR ,GAWALIR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2) GWALIOR AAYKAR BHAWAN CITY CENTRE GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

cash deposits made by the Assessing Officer. 5. Appellant assessee has preferred this second appeal on the following grounds : “1. That the assessment order as well as the order of Ld. CIT (A) are both against the facts of the case and are untenable under the law. The Id. CIT (A) has grossly erred in sustaining the disallowance

SATYAPRAKASH,AGRA vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal preferred by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15

deposits are from withdrawals from the bank which are not utilized by the assessee. He submitted that the source of cash is already disclosed before the lower authorities. The reasons for disallowance

MARSHAL SECURITY SERVICES,AGRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

cash deposits reflected in the same bank statement.\nh) CBDT instructions do not allow crossing the limit without obtaining prior\npermission.\ni) Receipt or fees is seen at gross and Income is seen at net.\nj) Expenditures are independent to receipt and income.\nk) Receipt minus expenses is income and all (all three including h) & i) above)\nare independent issues

JOURA CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MORENA, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO, MORENA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19 Joura Co-Operative Marketing Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Society Limited Ward-1, Morena The Joura Dist Morena Dist. Morena Pan :Aabaj1828K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. N. Agarwal, Ca Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.02.2026 Order

deposit and Assessing Officer proposed the estimation on the total cash credit with the 5 | P a g e conjunction/presumption that the assessee is expected to earn 5% of the above u/s 68 of the Act. We fail to understand how the Assessing Officer can make additions as unexplained credit after accepting the source of cash, from the PDS business

RANJANA CHATURVEDI,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(1), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalito-1(3)(1), Ranjna Chaturvedi Ayakar Bhawan, 9A, T Point, Behind Back Vs. Radhika Vihar, Gate Skjs, Govind Nagar, Phase-Ii, Mathura-281001 (U.P.) Mathura-281004 (U.P.) Pan-Afopc4950N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M.M. Agarwal, Ca Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

disallowance of Rs.1,15,296/- out of interest expenditure and further added a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- towards cash deposited

SHUSHIL KUMAR GAUTAM,GABHANA ALIGARH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER 4(1)(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

cash deposit in bank account. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the said addition 5. Because the tax has been wrongly charges u/s 115BBE of the act. 6. Because the addition was wrongly made u/s 28 by disallowing

SH RANJEET KUMAR SHARMA ,GWALIOR vs. ITO 2(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with the observations made herein above

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalito, 2(1), Shri Ranjeet Kumar Gawalior. Sharma, Vs. Meera Colony, Bihind-477447 Madhya Pradesh. Pan-Bwdps0542K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv. & Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv. Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

cash deposited during demonetization period. The Ld. AO also made addition of Rs.6,00,000/- by disallowing the agricultural income

SH. SRIDHAR PANDEY,AURAIYA vs. A.C.I.T.-2, AGRA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

cash found deposited in the bank account, source of which allegedly remained unexplained. The facts and circumstances in which the addition has been made, in the present case, we find is identical to that in A.Y 2002-03, dealt with us above. The issue therefore stands covered by our decision in the case of the assessee

SHRI SRIDHAR PANDEY S/O,AURAIYA vs. A.C.I.T.-2, AGRA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

cash found deposited in the bank account, source of which allegedly remained unexplained. The facts and circumstances in which the addition has been made, in the present case, we find is identical to that in A.Y 2002-03, dealt with us above. The issue therefore stands covered by our decision in the case of the assessee

SAGAR DWELLINGS P LTD,NEAR SUN TEMPLE GWALIOR vs. ACIT, FACELESS

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

deposited through RTGS and immediately withdrawn in cash. The average balance in this bank account was Rs. 1,01,024/- only. From the field enquiries conducted, it came to notice that there was no concern named as M/s Jai Baba Gurudev Traders on the given address, which was A-4/74, Singh Market, Parking number 1, Transport Nagar, Near Krishna

MANISH KUMAR CHATURVEDI,JHANSI vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(2), JHANSI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Manish Kumar Chaturvedi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1882, Shivaji Nagar, Jhansic Ward-2(3)(2), 284001 Jhansi 284 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Akkpc5294Q Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/02/2025

cash deposits, among others. The ld AO framed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act on 26-12-2019 determining total income of the assessee at Rs 14,11,619/- after making the following additions / disallowances

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. ADITY PANDEY, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

deposit of cash of Rs.13,61,20,122/- (including through bearer cheque) was made in the current account maintained by assessee with Indian Bank. It was ascertained by the department that the assessee declared salary income only to the tune of Rs.32,22,850/-. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. ADITYA PANDEY, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals ITA No

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

deposit of cash of Rs.13,61,20,122/- (including through bearer cheque) was made in the current account maintained by assessee with Indian Bank. It was ascertained by the department that the assessee declared salary income only to the tune of Rs.32,22,850/-. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee

HARI OM AGARWAL,KOLARAS vs. ITO SHIVPURI, ASHOK NAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

cash available of Rs. 37,79,000/- after declaration of demonetization, which was deposited back by the assessee in his bank account on 10.11.2016. The Assessing Officer accepted the aforesaid contention of the assessee, and matter rested there itself as no additions to the income was made by the AO on that count. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that

KAMLA ASSOCIATES,SHEOPUR vs. ACIT-3(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshkamla Associates, Vs. Acit, Pali Road, Sheopur, Circle-3(1), Mp Gwalior Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaffk5366A Assessee By : Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17/03/2026

deposit the available cash with the dealer with a promise that they will arrange the balance payment and buy the tractors in a period of next 15 to 20 days. Sometimes it may so happen that the balance payment could not be arranged within the stipulated period but they keep their advance with the dealer and whenever they become capable